Legal News

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[10/03] Kim v. Real Property
In an asset forfeiture case interpreting the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), dismissal of a civil forfeiture complaint is reversed where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 983(a)(3)(A) authorizes district courts to grant ex parte extensions of time to file civil forfeiture complaints; and 2) district courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate competing claims to seized property even after the underlying civil forfeiture action has been dismissed.

[08/14] Santiago-Lugo v. US
In a claim by plaintiff for return of seized but not forfeited property as barred by the statute of limitations, government's motion for summary affirmance is granted where: 1) the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. section 2401(a) applies to Rule 41(g) claims; and 2) in circumstances where there has been a related criminal proceeding but no civil forfeiture proceeding, the cause of action accrues at the end of the criminal proceeding.

[08/06] US v. $125,938.62
In a civil forfeiture action under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), court's order of forfeiture is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the government met its burden of proving that two of the certificates of deposit were subject to forfeiture because they were derived from funds stolen from the Nicaraguan treasury; but 2) with respect to five other certificates, the government failed to meet its burden to present evidence of a connection between those funds and funds stolen from the Nicaraguan treasury.

[07/31] US v. $291, 828.00 in US Currency
In an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding brought pursuant to 21 U.S.C. section 881(a)(7) against money, jewelry and electronic equipment seized from claimant's home, rulings in favor of government and an order of forfeiture are affirmed where: 1) exigent circumstances existed; and 2) evidence obtained after the search warrant was admissible.

[07/28] US v. $92,300 in US Currency
Summary judgment ordering the forfeiture of currency allegedly found on claimant and in his vehicle is reversed where: 1) the government's evidence supporting its motion consisted of an affidavit containing hearsay evidence; and 2) legislative changes increasing the government's burden in civil forfeiture cases to a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard also required that hearsay no longer be admissible in forfeiture proceedings.

[07/22] US v. De La Mata
In a case where the government obtained defendants' promises to convey certain interests in property to the United States, in lieu of a forfeiture trial and sentence, an order granting the government's motion for a "final order of forfeiture" is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) individual defendants and corporate defendants were properly before the court of appeals; 2) the circuit court rejects individual defendants' argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government's motion sought relief in a criminal case via amended sentences; but 3) corporate defendants were not parties to individual defendants' agreements and thus retained certain property interests.

[07/17] US v. Porchay
In proceedings arising after charges against appellant for drug and money laundering were dismissed, denial of appellant's motions to recover property seized from her car and residence and for attorneys' fees is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in converting her Rule 41(g) claim into a section 853(n) claim since she was no longer a defendant at that time; 2) appellant conceded that she did not own the property in question and failed to present ownership evidence; 3) appellant did not have a right to challenge the seizure as a third party; and 4) attorneys' fees were not warranted.

[05/21] Jackson v. US
Partial denial of defendant's motion for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. Pro 41(g) is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) evidence indicated that another party had a claim of ownership interest adverse to defendant's stereo/video equipment and clothing found in his girlfriend's vehicle at the time of arrest; but 2) defendant was entitled to return of custom wheels installed on his girlfriend's vehicle as, evidence did not suggest that the property was abandoned, intended as a gift, or integrated under Missouri's doctrine of accession.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[10/10] US v. Spikes
Sentence for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court did not articulate any alternative sentence, and there was no clear indication on the record that the district court would have imposed the same sentence if defendant's legal argument had prevailed; 2) the district court did not state whether it would have chosen the same 160-month sentence if faced with a properly calculated advisory range of 135 to 168 months, and if the court had intended to impose "a sentence at the lower end" of the appropriately calculated range, defendant's sentence would be significantly less than 160 months; and 3) thus, the court's error of adding two extra criminal history points affected defendant's substantial rights.

[10/10] US v. Garate
Sentence of 30 months for traveling with the intent to engage in sexual conduct with a minor that was previously reversed and remanded as unreasonable, is now affirmed where in light of the deferential standard of review set forth in the intervening case of Gall v. US, the court could not say that the lower court abused its discretion in weighing the evidence as it did, where, as here the facts could legitimately be viewed from different perspectives.

[10/10] Johnson v. Bagley
In a conviction for aggravated murder and sentence of death, petition for habeas corpus is granted where: 1) by failing to interview defendant's mother, defendant's attorneys failed to uncover two critical categories of information that established "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."; and 2) the failure to uncover those pieces of evidence, established prejudice.

[10/10] US v. DeFilippo
Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to racketeer, illegal gambling, and conspiracy to collect credit through extortionate means are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the district court erred when it admitted testimony from a high-ranking member of the Bonanno Crime Family; 2) the murder of George Sciascia was not relevant conduct because it was not related to a conspiratorial object of which defendant was convicted; 3) the Government failed to rebut an alleged presumption that a person withdraws from a conspiracy when he is arrested; and 4) the district court erred in refusing to hold a hearing on that issue.

[10/09] US v. Banks
Order for a new trial after convictions on drug-related counts is affirmed where the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that information not disclosed by the government, which could have been used to impeach its expert witness, was material, and that defendant was prejudiced by the nondisclosure.

[10/08] Claudio v. State of Delaware
Denials of postconviction motions in a first-degree murder case are affirmed where the trial judge's instruction on the "in furtherance of the commission of a felony" element of felony murder was legally sufficient.

[10/06] Brown v. Delaware
Convictions of two defendants for felony murder, manslaughter, robbery, and conspiracy are reversed and remanded where defendants had presented some credible evidence supporting their alibi defense and, upon their request, an alibi instruction was therefore required.

[10/06] Sierra v. Delaware
A probationer's convictions on drug and weapons charges are reversed and remanded where, under the totality of the circumstances, a tip from a confidential informant did not provide reasonable suspicion to support a search of defendant's home.

More...